Tuesday, October 11, 2016

Burma Myanmar Reconciliation in Rakhine State

A state of emergency has
been lifted, Myanmar must come up with immediate solutions on local orders that
oppress the state’s minority groups.

While Myanmar can be praised for developments in its peace process and
national reconciliation efforts, the ripple effect of these changes may not
stretch far enough to reach some of the country’s most vulnerable.

However, the Commission’s mandate, though still hazy, may be limited to
finding ‘impartial solutions’ to the future of Rakhine State. Former
UN Secretary-General, Kofi Annan, who is set to chair the Commission, has
recently confirmed that investigating human rights
concerns lies outside the Commission’s mandate. What’s missing is
acknowledgement that the Commission cannot act as a substitute for the need of
a more immediate solution to deal with the existing local oppressive apparatus.

Compounding this, while the state of emergency was lifted in March, related issues still
plague the state.

If we sift through the discriminatory legal provisions and the national
security facade of the state of emergency we find obscure policies existing at
a local level in Rakhine State that inform these larger issues.

Discriminatory policies targeting the Rohingya Muslims and other ethnic
minority populations need to be addressed on a shorter timeframe than the Commission’s
mandate allows. But the solution to the problem cannot be solely contained to a
local context; it’s also heavily reliant on the spectrum of responses from the
international community.

The four-year state of emergency period saw human rights violations, peace and security
instability, and damage to human lives. But looking under the surface of this
national security pretence, it is clear to see that the systemic root of these
issues lies within local orders imposed predominantly in northern Rakhine
state. It’s important to note that local orders continue to be enforced.

These local orders are a set of discriminatory
policies and directives issued by local authorities often said to be used to target
the Rohingya population. Though some have been in place since the mid-1990s,
the orders were enforced more strictly after the 2012 violence.

Local orders prescribe broad powers to authorities to enforce selective
restrictions on movement, marriage, childbirth and on the freedom of movement
of the Rohingya population. Restriction on the freedom of movement can in turn
impede on access to education, health care and other basic services.

Plainly, these amount to violations of freedom of movement, the rights
to marry and to found a family, and the rights of the child under international
law, to name a few. Under these punishable offences, the Rohingya population
will be increasingly segregated on the ground, hindering the country’s national
reconciliation process. If pursued, the abolishment of such local orders will
inform long term solutions to larger issues such as the arbitrary deprivation of nationality.

In finding a way forward, national security considerations should not be
downplayed. Undertaking national security risk assessments prior to developing
solutions to human rights issues such as the freedom of movement is imperative.

Ongoing conflict in the country means a
chance of re-escalated violence if all restrictions on movement are lifted. At
the same time, national security cannot act as validation to veil the
repetitive violations of basic human rights. For that reason, a balance between
national security and human rights considerations should be sought when
moulding proportional and non-discriminatory solutions.

The international community should capitalise on Myanmar’s democratic
transition to engage with the country on this contentious and thorny issue.
Neither the announcement of the Commission nor the lift of the state of
emergency should hinder the UN and civil society to engage in continued
advocacy on immediate solutions for the Rakhine State situation.

And though successful in some contexts, state-on-state engagement with
Myanmar doesn’t necessarily need to be adversarial. States can take the reins
here by providing the Tatmadaw apolitical professional military human
rights education with a national security angle.

There’s no sense in undermining the National League for Democracy’s
decision to establish the commission. Of course questions regarding the
Commission’s inclusive minority representation and a clearer mandate should be
addressed by the Government. Nevertheless, it is a commendable move and clearly
aligns with other national reconciliation efforts.

However, the Commission is only due to submit its findings and proposed
measures to the Government of Myanmar in the second half of 2017. This is far
too long a delay in tackling these local discriminatory practices; especially
considering it remains unclear whether the Commission will provide solutions to
such issues. Worse still, nationalists are contributing to this delay
after attempting to argue that the appointment of three international experts,
including Kofi Annan, will undermine the country’s sovereignty.

These fears may prove to not only be unfounded but unhelpful.

Kofi Annan has repeatedly dwelled on the lessons learned by the
international community’s mistakes when it comes to the mistreatment of
minorities. Most importantly, he is well placed to voice the need for immediate
solutions in Rakhine State and avoid the protracted struggle of the country’s
most vulnerable.

Thulasi Wigneswaran
is an Australian national who holds a Masters in Human Rights Law and
Policy from the University of New South Wales. She currently works as a
Research Intern with the Australian Strategic Policy Institute.